DVC plans to target commercial renters

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

It doesn’t matter whether the lead guest shows up or not. Any guest whose name is on the list can go to the front desk and check in when they arrive. They can even link their own credit card for room charges.

Yes, I know that’s how it works now. I was responding to the suggestion that the lead guest be fixed as a way to prevent commercial renting.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Nah, that just lets the big box brokers who are buying/stripping/renting/selling know how to adjust to get around the new rules. Keep the rules opaque and just start bringing the (cancelled reservation) hammer down. It’s a simple strategy that has worked remarkably well for the other large timeshare developers. No reason to reinvent the wheel here with all kinds of complex new rules.

I don’t know much about other timeshare systems, so genuine question, but have there been any instances of reservations getting cancelled where it is a genuine ‘non commercial’ rental to a family member or similar? How do other developers distinguish between rentals and gifts to friends etc? Is it possible that a gift reservation gets cancelled?

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

I don’t know much about other timeshare systems, so genuine question, but have there been any instances of reservations getting cancelled where it is a genuine ‘non commercial’ rental to a family member or similar? How do other developers distinguish between rentals and gifts to friends etc? Is it possible that a gift reservation gets cancelled?

Depends on who you ask. With Wyndham there were definitely cases of mega-renters posting that they also had “legitimate” non-rental reservations for family and friends cancelled (and some of them had their accounts suspended entirely for a period of time). However, no negative action (including canceling reservations) was taken until after an official warning letter had been sent telling the person to knock it off. If someone got the “knock it off” letter because of their activity matching what a mega-renter would do, and then continued using tons of guest confirmations, they did so at their own peril.

 

[Sandisw]

I guess. I just thought that they could say “you can have 5 people in the room, but only 4 would be ‘on the reservation’.” What would be more restrictive is if the lead guest needs to physically be there at check-in, but that’s moving in the opposite direction of what Disney is doing with virtual checkin etc. Perhaps if only the lead guest is able to put down their credit card for MB/room charges that might help?

Anyone staying at the hotel needs to be a registered guest. If the owner is one, then you can’t come with 5 and pretend.

Any guest can check in. That is not the issue. But if the 5th person is not an offical guest, they are allowed to stay and they would not be eligible for any perks of resort guests.

 

[Genie+]

The more concerns I read here, the more this previously suggested solution seems best-

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can: Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*. Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests. The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

Pretty simple. Limited in scope. Leaves plenty of flexibility. Leaves ability to rent intact.

DVC has to walk the line between pliancy and dereliction. Keep the system pliant as the contract stands for Personal Use, while not derelict about Commercial Use being explicitly prohibited in our contracts. Why did they have the foresight to do that? It’s predictably a different pattern of use and stress on the system different than typical personal use. Disrupts the functionality and potential value of the membership for personal use. For Personal Use is what we were all sold and many of us relied on, that Commercial Use would be prevented from deteriorating the system.

What reasonable complaint is there against the above limits? There’s still plenty of room to rent out, even including those who bought points to offset vacation costs. Even room to still get in on high profit margin rentals - just a new limit to that. Still plenty of room to give away trips to others and change dates. Remember, it’s been pointed out Commercial Use is not widespread. These limits would only need be applied in those specific areas. The rest of the system? Untouched. Free to have at it as always.

 

[Tatebeck]

The more concerns I read here, the more this previously suggested solution seems best-

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can: Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*. Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests. The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

Pretty simple. Limited in scope. Leaves plenty of flexibility. Leaves ability to rent intact.

DVC has to walk the line between pliancy and dereliction. Keep the system pliant as the contract stands for Personal Use, while not derelict about Commercial Use being explicitly prohibited in our contracts. Why did they have the foresight to do that? It’s predictably a different pattern of use and stress on the system different than typical personal use. Disrupts the functionality and potential value of the membership for personal use. For Personal Use is what we were all sold and many of us relied on, that Commercial Use would be prevented from deteriorating the system.

What reasonable complaint is there against the above limits? There’s still plenty of room to rent out, even including those who bought points to offset vacation costs. Even room to still get in on high profit margin rentals - just a new limit to that. Still plenty of room to give away trips to others and change dates. Remember, it’s been pointed out Commercial Use is not widespread. These limits would only need be applied in those specific areas. The rest of the system? Untouched. Free to have at it as always.

I could see members being upset with the 2 per year limit. Grandparents and long time owners who want to book trips for their family but don't want to physically go themselves comes to mind. Also anyone who has a lot of points but just doesn't want to use them for a single year. Good luck getting rid of 1000+ points, possibly at multiple home resorts rented in just 2 reservations. And Disney said that is an example that definitely falls under personal use and is approved.

 

[Sandisw]

I have rented my points, but never a confirmed reservation. I rented when life got in the way of vacation. I hope whatever they come up with is simple and does not stop casual rentals. One thing I have heard and will support is that if you change the name on the reservation, that reservation is then canceled and the room goes to whoever is on the waitlist. That would stop the spec rentals and not penalize us too much.

Many times I book rooms in my name so I can get them booked and change the guests later to family and friends coming with me.

No renting involved. I do not want to see DVC begin to consider every reservation as a potential rental and apply rules that way.

They have the language to help…pattern of rental activity…they can set a low threshold if they want to trigger a review of an account and go from there.

 

[Genie+]

I could see members being upset with the 2 per year limit. Grandparents and long time owners who want to book trips for their family but don't want to physically go themselves comes to mind. Also anyone who has a lot of points but just doesn't want to use them for a single year. Good luck getting rid of 1000+ points, possibly at multiple home resorts rented in just 2 reservations.

It wouldn’t be limited to just 2. That limit is just to the highest demand slice. Everything else stays the same. I found once I started thinking about actual examples of use, it’s not bad. Most of the flexibility is left intact.

 

[Tatebeck]

It wouldn’t be limited to just 2. That limit is just to the highest demand slice. Everything else stays the same. I found once I started thinking about actual examples of use, it’s not bad. Most of the flexibility is left intact.

Still seems quite limiting, unless it is a very small slice of rooms/times that are restricted.

If those dates are times I would want to go, have booked rooms for me and some family/friends, then cannot go, it could force me to have to cancel those rooms and try to reserve something else to rent last minute instead of renting what I already had

 

[TCRAIG]

The more concerns I read here, the more this previously suggested solution seems best-

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can: Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*. Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests. The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

Pretty simple. Limited in scope. Leaves plenty of flexibility. Leaves ability to rent intact.

DVC has to walk the line between pliancy and dereliction. Keep the system pliant as the contract stands for Personal Use, while not derelict about Commercial Use being explicitly prohibited in our contracts. Why did they have the foresight to do that? It’s predictably a different pattern of use and stress on the system different than typical personal use. Disrupts the functionality and potential value of the membership for personal use. For Personal Use is what we were all sold and many of us relied on, that Commercial Use would be prevented from deteriorating the system.

What reasonable complaint is there against the above limits? There’s still plenty of room to rent out, even including those who bought points to offset vacation costs. Even room to still get in on high profit margin rentals - just a new limit to that. Still plenty of room to give away trips to others and change dates. Remember, it’s been pointed out Commercial Use is not widespread. These limits would only need be applied in those specific areas. The rest of the system? Untouched. Free to have at it as always.

I still think this is too restrictive - say Gma and Gpa want to book a big family vacay…but not everyone can come at the same time…so Gma and Gpa get their room for 14 days - then another room for kid#1 and family but only for days 3-10, kid #2 and family for days 7-11, kid #3 is SOL cause Gma & Gpa already used up their 2 non-overlapping bookings….

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

I still think this is too restrictive - say Gma and Gpa want to book a big family vacay…but not everyone can come at the same time…so Gma and Gpa get their room for 14 days - then another room for kid#1 and family but only for days 3-10, kid #2 and family for days 7-11, kid #3 is SOL cause Gma & Gpa already used up their 2 non-overlapping bookings….

If G/G are there the whole time then according to this it would be covered. It’s just if they are booking for when they aren’t there that 2 would apply. At least that’s the way I read it.

 

[Genie+]

Gma and Gpa can still have unlimited non-overlapping bookings.

I think why overall Wyndham owners ended up not minding the system is because when you apply to real actual use, it’s not as disrupting as one might initially expect. For most it is no disruption at all even if taking more than 2 trips per year or giving away more than 2 trips, etc.

Try to come up with a full year plan, whether 100 or 1000 points are owned, that ends up impacted.

 

[Genie+]

If G/G are there the whole time then according to this it would be covered. It’s just if they are booking for when they aren’t there that 2 would apply. At least that’s the way I read it.

Yep. When I started running through all different actual scenarios that people talked about here, they were still a go under this. It seems much stricter than it actually results.

 

[TCRAIG]

If G/G are there the whole time then according to this it would be covered. It’s just if they are booking for when they aren’t there that 2 would apply. At least that’s the way I read it.

I didn’t read ‘travelling at the same time’ quite this way but maybe it could be ‘travelling ANYTIME at the same time’..that would also allow for a family member to come in earlier or leave later than the Grands…

 

[Genie+]

I didn’t read ‘travelling at the same time’ quite this way but maybe it could be ‘travelling ANYTIME at the same time’..that would also allow for a family member to come in earlier or leave later than the Grands…

I should post the whole thing as Brian Noble explained:

I would offer one possibility that I've grown to like: Wyndham's Owner Priority dates.

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can:

• Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest
• Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*.
• Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests.

The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

For most small-scale owners, this is just fine--we are unlikely to rent more than once or twice a year, so this doesn't matter. It can make things a little complicated if you often send your adult children on vacation without going along, but the solution to that is to add them to one of the deeds/contracts. (Wyndham allows differently-titled properties in the same master account; the owners of "the account" are the union of all of the owners on each property.)

It can even work well for folks who rent more often; they just have to choose times/resorts that are not on the restricted list, and plenty of those exist.

When this plan was implemented, availability at some of the toughest-to-book resorts got MUCH better in a hurry. For example, it used to be next to impossible to get summer dates at Glacier Canyon in the Wisconsin Dells without owning there--and even that required effort. Now it's quite a bit easier.

Also: most of the large-scale Wyndham renters hate this, and many other rank-and-file owners (though not all of them) seem to think it is just fine. That tells me that it's targeted reasonably well.

-------
*: Last I knew, the dates did not have to line up exactly; as long as there is some overlap it is fine.

 

[TCRAIG]

Gma and Gpa can still have unlimited non-overlapping bookings.

I think why overall Wyndham owners ended up not minding the system is because when you apply to real actual use, it’s not as disrupting as one might initially expect. For most it is no disruption at all even if taking more than 2 trips per year or giving away more than 2 trips, etc.

Try to come up with a full year plan, whether 100 or 1000 points are owned, that ends up impacted.

They could - but it still doesn’t help them with their years big vacay…
And (at least for me) comparing Wyndham or Marriot or Hilton TS to DVC is a flawed comparison - all may be TS - but DVC is a much better product…it’s like comparing Community College to an Ivy League school - there’s absolutely nothing ‘wrong’ or ‘less’ about CC…but it ain’t the same.

 

[Sandisw]

They can’t stop “casual rentals”, even if they wanted to. Renting is explicitly permitted in the TOS. They can only restrict commercial renting.

Which is why I think stopping spec rentals isn’t as easy as it sounds.

I personally dont see how they structure it to differentiate. And, if they disallow spec rentals, you could end up with an owner who has an emergency last minute, can’t go, and wants to rent vs losing points. And maybe canceling isn’t an option because availablilty is slim.

However. It will be interesting to see what update to rules we might see

 

[Sandisw]

The more concerns I read here, the more this previously suggested solution seems best-

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can: Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*. Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests. The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

Pretty simple. Limited in scope. Leaves plenty of flexibility. Leaves ability to rent intact.

DVC has to walk the line between pliancy and dereliction. Keep the system pliant as the contract stands for Personal Use, while not derelict about Commercial Use being explicitly prohibited in our contracts. Why did they have the foresight to do that? It’s predictably a different pattern of use and stress on the system different than typical personal use. Disrupts the functionality and potential value of the membership for personal use. For Personal Use is what we were all sold and many of us relied on, that Commercial Use would be prevented from deteriorating the system.

What reasonable complaint is there against the above limits? There’s still plenty of room to rent out, even including those who bought points to offset vacation costs. Even room to still get in on high profit margin rentals - just a new limit to that. Still plenty of room to give away trips to others and change dates. Remember, it’s been pointed out Commercial Use is not widespread. These limits would only need be applied in those specific areas. The rest of the system? Untouched. Free to have at it as always.

What about the owners who have adult children who travel on their own,?

Definitely don’t want to see limits where owners can’t send immediate family without them because of a threshold.

 

[Brian Noble]

Folks, there is no mechanism that will effectively curb rentals while not impacting the membership in any negative way. There is no magical unicorns and rainbows solution that does both of those things. You have to choose: curb rentals at the cost of some flexiblity, or don't bother trying to curb rentals.

As for the adult children thing specifcally: Most of the Wyndham owners on TUG don't have that problem. A few of those that do have used gratuitous transfers to convert their adult children to "owners". And even then, there are lots of resorts/times of year that are not covered by the Owner Priority restrictions.

 

[Brian Noble]

(I'll also note that the entity doing the choosing is not the rank-and-file membership. It is DVD.)